Topic 207 - Leases

IFRS 16 Leases

IAS 17 Leases

• 207.3.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Subsurface Rights

• 207.3.1.2

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Definition of a Lease—Decision-making Rights

• 207.3.1.3

• IFRIC Agenda Decision – Economic Benefits from Use of a Windfarm

• 207.3.1.4

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Definition of a Lease - Substitution Rights

• 207.4.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lease Term and Useful Life of Leasehold Improvements

• 207.6.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lessee’s Incremental Borrowing Rate

• 207.6.1.2

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Non-refundable Value Added Tax on Lease Payments

• 207.15.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lessor Forgiveness of Lease Payments

• 207.17.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Sale and Leaseback with Variable Payments

207.3.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Subsurface Rights

June 2019 - The Committee received a request about a particular contract for subsurface rights. In the contract described in the request, a pipeline operator (customer) obtains the right to place an oil pipeline in underground space for 20 years in exchange for consideration. The contract specifies the exact location and dimensions (path, width and depth) of the underground space within which the pipeline will be placed. The landowner retains the right to use the surface of the land above the pipeline, but it has no right to access or otherwise change the use of the specified underground space throughout the 20-year period of use. The customer has the right to perform inspection, repairs and maintenance work (including replacing damaged sections of the pipeline when necessary).

The request asked whether IFRS 16, IAS 38 Intangible Assets or another IFRS Standard applies in accounting for the contract.

Which IFRS Standard does an entity consider first?

Paragraph 3 of IFRS 16 requires an entity to apply IFRS 16 to all leases, with limited exceptions. Paragraph 9 of IFRS 16 states: ‘At inception of a contract, an entity shall assess whether the contract is, or contains, a lease’.

The Committee observed that, in the contract described in the request, none of the exceptions in paragraphs 3 and 4 of IFRS 16 apply—in particular, the Committee noted that the underground space is tangible. Accordingly, if the contract contains a lease, IFRS 16 applies to that lease. If the contract does not contain a lease, the entity would then consider which other IFRS Standard applies.

The Committee therefore concluded that the entity first considers whether the contract contains a lease as defined in IFRS 16.

The definition of a lease

Paragraph 9 of IFRS 16 states that ‘a contract is, or contains, a lease if the contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration’. Applying paragraph B9 of IFRS 16, to meet the definition of a lease the customer must have both:

Identified asset

Paragraphs B13⁠–⁠B20 of IFRS 16 provide application guidance on an identified asset. Paragraph B20 states that a ‘capacity portion of an asset is an identified asset if it is physically distinct’. But ‘a customer does not have the right to use an identified asset if the supplier has the substantive right to substitute the asset throughout the period of use’ (paragraph B14).

The Committee observed that, in the contract described in the request, the specified underground space is physically distinct from the remainder of the land. The contract’s specifications include the path, width and depth of the pipeline, thereby defining a physically distinct underground space. The space being underground does not in itself affect whether it is an identified asset—the specified underground space is physically distinct in the same way that a specified area of space on the land’s surface would be physically distinct.

The landowner does not have the right to substitute the underground space throughout the period of use. Consequently, the Committee concluded that the specified underground space is an identified asset as described in paragraphs B13⁠–⁠B20.

Right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use

Paragraphs B21⁠–⁠B23 of IFRS 16 provide application guidance on the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of an identified asset throughout the period of use. Paragraph B21 specifies that a customer can have that right, for example, by having exclusive use of the identified asset throughout the period of use.

The Committee observed that, in the contract described in the request, the customer has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the specified underground space throughout the 20-year period of use. The customer has exclusive use of the specified underground space throughout that period of use.

Right to direct the use

Paragraphs B24-B30 of IFRS 16 provide application guidance on the right to direct the use of an identified asset throughout the period of use. Paragraph B24 specifies that a customer has that right if either:

The Committee observed that, in the contract described in the request, the customer has the right to direct the use of the specified underground space throughout the 20-year period of use because the conditions in paragraph B24(b)(i) exist. How and for what purpose the specified underground space will be used (ie to locate the pipeline with specified dimensions through which oil will be transported) is predetermined in the contract. The customer has the right to operate the specified underground space by having the right to perform inspection, repairs and maintenance work. The customer makes all the decisions about the use of the specified underground space that can be made during the 20-year period of use.

Consequently, the Committee concluded that the contract described in the request contains a lease as defined in IFRS 16. The customer would therefore apply IFRS 16 in accounting for that lease.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine its accounting for the contract described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

207.3.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Definition of a Lease—Decision-making Rights

January 2020 - The Committee received a request about whether the customer has the right to direct the use of a ship throughout the five-year term of a contract. In the fact pattern described in the request:

The right to direct the use of an identified asset

Paragraph B24 of IFRS 16 specifies when a customer has the right to direct the use of an identified asset throughout the period of use. Paragraph B24(b) applies only when the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used are predetermined. The Board noted in paragraph BC121 of IFRS 16 that ‘it would expect decisions about how and for what purpose an asset is used to be predetermined in relatively few cases’.

The Committee observed that, in the fact pattern described in the request, because not all relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the ship is used are predetermined, the customer considers paragraph B24(a) of IFRS 16 in assessing whether it has the right to direct the use of the ship.

The right to direct how and for what purpose an asset is used

Paragraph B24(a) specifies that a customer has the right to direct the use of an identified asset throughout the period of use if it has ‘the right to direct how and for what purpose the asset is used throughout the period of use (as described in paragraphs B25⁠–⁠B30)’.

To have the right to direct how and for what purpose the asset is used, within the scope of its right of use defined in the contract, the customer must be able to change how and for what purpose the asset is used throughout the period of use (paragraph B25). In assessing whether that is the case, an entity considers rights to make decisions during the period of use that are most relevant to changing how and for what purpose the asset is used throughout that period. Decision-making rights are relevant when they affect the economic benefits to be derived from use (paragraph B25). An entity does not consider decisions that are predetermined before the period of use unless the conditions in paragraph B24(b)(ii) exist (paragraph B29).

Paragraph B26 includes examples of decision-making rights that, depending on the circumstances, grant the right to change how and for what purpose the asset is used. Rights limited to operating or maintaining the asset do not grant the right to change how and for what purpose it is used (paragraph B27).

The Committee observed that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the customer has the right to direct how and for what purpose the ship is used throughout the period of use. The customer has the right to make decisions about the use of the ship during the period of use that affect the economic benefits to be derived from that use. Therefore, within the scope of its right of use defined in the contract, the customer can change how and for what purpose the ship is used. The predetermination in the contract of many decisions about how and for what purpose the ship is used defines the scope of the customer’s right of use—within that scope, the customer has the right to make the decisions that are most relevant to changing how and for what purpose the ship is used.

The Committee also observed that, although the operation and maintenance of the ship are essential to its efficient use, the supplier’s decisions in this regard do not give it the right to direct how and for what purpose the ship is used.

The Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the customer has the right to direct the use of the ship throughout the period of use. Consequently, the contract contains a lease.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether the contract described in the request contains a lease. The Committee therefore decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

207.3.1.3

IFRIC Agenda Decision – Economic Benefits from Use of a Windfarm

December 2021 - The Committee received a request about whether, applying paragraph B9(a) of IFRS 16, an electricity retailer (retailer) has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of a windfarm throughout the term of an agreement with a windfarm generator (supplier). In the fact pattern described in the request:

a. the retailer and supplier are registered participants in an electricity market, in which customers and suppliers are unable to enter into contracts directly with each other for the purchase and sale of electricity. Instead, customers and suppliers make such purchases and sales via the market’s electricity grid, the spot price for which is set by the market operator. The retailer therefore purchases electricity from the grid.

b. the retailer enters into an agreement with the supplier. The agreement:

• i.   swaps the spot price per megawatt of electricity the windfarm supplies to the grid during the 20-year term of the agreement for a fixed price per megawatt, and is settled net in cash. In effect, the supplier receives a fixed price per megawatt for the electricity it supplies to the grid during the period of the agreement and the retailer settles with the supplier the difference between that fixed price and the spot prices per megawatt for that volume of electricity.
• ii. transfers to the retailer all renewable energy credits that accrue from use of the windfarm.

Paragraph 9 of IFRS 16 states that ‘a contract is, or contains, a lease if the contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration’. To control the use of an identified asset for a period of time, the customer—throughout the period of use—must have both the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the identified asset and the right to direct the use of that asset (paragraph B9 of IFRS 16).

Paragraph B21 of IFRS 16 specifies that ‘a customer can obtain economic benefits from use of an asset directly or indirectly in many ways, such as by using, holding or sub-leasing the asset. The economic benefits from use of an asset include its primary output and by-products (including potential cash flows derived from these items), and other economic benefits from using the asset that could be realised from a commercial transaction with a third party’.

The Committee observed that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the economic benefits from use of the windfarm include the electricity it produces (as its primary output) and the renewable energy credits (as a by-product or other economic benefit from use of the windfarm).

The agreement results in the retailer settling with the supplier the difference between the fixed price and the spot prices per megawatt of electricity the windfarm supplies to the grid throughout the 20-year term of the agreement. That agreement, however, conveys neither the right nor the obligation for the retailer to obtain any of the electricity the windfarm produces and supplies to the grid. Although the retailer has the right to obtain the renewable energy credits (which represent a portion of the economic benefits from use of the windfarm), the retailer does not have the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the windfarm because it has no right to obtain any of the electricity the windfarm produces throughout the period of the agreement.

The Committee therefore concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the retailer does not have the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the windfarm. Consequently, the agreement does not contain a lease. The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity that enters into an agreement as described in the request to assess whether it has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of an identified asset. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.

In considering the request, the Committee noted two other agenda decisions that include explanatory material that may be relevant to the agreement described in this request:

a. the Agenda Decision Meaning of delivery (IFRS 9 Financial Instruments) (August 2005); and

207.3.1.4

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Definition of a Lease—Substitution Rights

April 2023 - The Committee received a request about how to assess whether a contract contains a lease. The request asked about:

a)    the level at which to evaluate whether a contract contains a lease—by considering each asset separately or all assets together—when the contract is for the use of more than one similar asset; and

b)    how to assess whether a contract contains a lease applying IFRS 16 when the supplier has particular substitution rights—ie the supplier:

                 i.        has the practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the period of use; but

                ii.        would not benefit economically from the exercise of its right to substitute the asset throughout the period of use.

The definition of a lease

Paragraph 9 of IFRS 16 states that ‘a contract is, or contains, a lease if the contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration’. Applying paragraph B9 of IFRS 16, for a contract to meet the definition of a lease the customer must have both:

a)    the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the identified asset throughout the period of use; and

b)    the right to direct the use of the identified asset throughout the period of use.

The period of use is ‘the total period of time that an asset is used to fulfil a contract with a customer (including any non-consecutive periods of time)’ (Appendix A to IFRS 16).

Paragraph B12 of IFRS 16 states that ‘an entity shall assess whether a contract contains a lease for each potential separate lease component’ and directs an entity to paragraph B32 of IFRS 16 for application guidance on separate lease components. Paragraph B32 specifies that the right to use an underlying asset is a separate lease component if both:

a)    the lessee can benefit from use of the underlying asset either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the lessee; and

b)    the underlying asset is neither highly dependent on, nor highly interrelated with, the other underlying assets in the contract.

Identified asset

The first requirement for a contract to meet the definition of a lease is that a customer controls the use of an identified asset. Paragraphs B13–B20 of IFRS 16 provide application guidance on an identified asset.

Paragraph B13 states that ‘an asset is typically identified by being explicitly specified in a contract. However, an asset can also be identified by being implicitly specified at the time that the asset is made available for use by the customer’.

But ‘even if an asset is specified, a customer does not have the right to use an identified asset if the supplier has the substantive right to substitute the asset throughout the period of use’ (paragraph B14). In that case, the supplier—rather than the customer—controls the use of the asset. Consequently, there is no identified asset; the contract does not contain a lease.

For a substitution right to be substantive, paragraph B14 states that both of the following conditions must exist:

a)    the supplier has the practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the period of use (for example, the customer cannot prevent the supplier from substituting the asset and alternative assets are readily available to the supplier or could be sourced by the supplier within a reasonable period of time); and

b)    the supplier would benefit economically from the exercise of its right to substitute the asset (ie the economic benefits associated with substituting the asset are expected to exceed the costs associated with substituting the asset).

Paragraph B16 states that ‘an entity’s evaluation of whether a supplier’s substitution right is substantive […] shall exclude consideration of future events that, at inception of the contract, are not considered likely to occur’.

Paragraphs B15–B18 specify requirements that mean, in each of the following situations, a supplier’s substitution right is not substantive (or the customer is not precluded from having the right to use an identified asset):

a)    the supplier has a right or an obligation to substitute the asset only on or after either a particular date or the occurrence of a specified event;

b)    the supplier would benefit economically from the exercise of its right only on the occurrence of a future event that, at inception of the contract, is not considered likely to occur; or

c)     the supplier has a right or an obligation to substitute the asset only for repairs and maintenance, if the asset is not operating properly or if a technical upgrade becomes available.

Paragraph B17 notes that the costs of substitution are more likely to exceed the associated benefits when the asset is located at the customer’s premises or elsewhere.

Paragraphs BC112–BC115 of the Basis for Conclusions on IFRS 16 explain the IASB’s rationale in developing the requirements on substitution rights. Paragraph BC113 states that ‘the IASB’s intention in including [these requirements] is to differentiate between:

a)    substitution rights that result in there being no identified asset because the supplier, rather than the customer, controls the use of an asset; and

b)    substitution rights that do not change the substance or character of the contract because it is not likely, or practically or economically feasible, for the supplier to exercise those rights’.

Paragraph BC113 goes on to explain that, at the time of developing IFRS 16, the IASB was of the view ‘that, in many cases, it will be clear that the supplier would not benefit from the exercise of a substitution right because of the costs associated with substituting an asset’.

Paragraph B19 requires the customer to presume that a supplier’s substitution right is not substantive if the customer cannot readily determine whether the supplier has a substantive substitution right. Paragraph BC115 notes:

a)    the requirement in paragraph B19 responds to stakeholders concerns that ‘in some cases it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a customer to determine whether a supplier’s substitution right is substantive’.

b)    ‘if substitution rights are substantive, then the IASB thinks that this would be relatively clear from the facts and circumstances’.

Consequently, the Committee observed that the requirements in paragraphs B13–B19 set a high hurdle for a customer to conclude that there is no identified asset when an asset is explicitly or implicitly specified.

The Committee also observed that determining whether a supplier’s right to substitute an asset is substantive throughout the period of use, as required by paragraph B14, requires judgement. Paragraph B14(a) specifies that a supplier has the practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the period of use even if the supplier does not already have alternative assets but could source those assets within a reasonable period of time. This illustrates that the term ‘throughout the period of use’ does not mean at all times within that period.

Applying the requirements in IFRS 16 to the fact pattern described in the request

In the fact pattern described in the request:

a. a customer enters into a 10-year contract with a supplier for the use of 100 similar new assets—batteries used in electric buses. The customer uses each battery together with other resources readily available to it (each battery is used in a bus that the customer owns or leases from a party unrelated to the supplier).

b. it is assumed that the supplier has the practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the contract term such that the condition in paragraph B14(a) exists.

c. if a battery were to be substituted, the supplier would be required to compensate the customer for any revenue lost or costs incurred while the substitution takes place. Whether substitution is economically beneficial for the supplier at a point in time depends on both the amount of compensation payable to the customer and the condition of the battery.

d. at inception of the contract, it is expected that the supplier would not benefit economically from substituting a battery that has been used for less than three years but could benefit economically from substituting a battery that has been used for three years or more.

The level at which to evaluate whether a contract contains a lease

In the fact pattern described in the request:

a)    the customer is able to benefit from use of each asset (a battery) together with other resources (a bus) available to it; and

b)    each battery is neither highly dependent on, nor highly interrelated with, the other batteries in the contract.

Therefore, the Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, applying paragraph B12, the customer assesses whether the contract contains a lease—including evaluating whether the supplier’s substitution right is substantive—for each potential separate lease component, ie for each battery.

Identified asset

In the fact pattern described in the request, each battery is specified. Even if not explicitly specified in the contract, a battery would be implicitly specified at the time it is made available for the customer’s use. Therefore, the Committee observed that, unless the supplier has the substantive right to substitute the battery throughout the period of use, each battery is an identified asset.

In the fact pattern described in the request, the condition in paragraph B14(a)—the supplier has the practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the period of use—is assumed to exist. The Committee observed, however, that because the supplier is not expected to benefit economically from exercising its right to substitute a battery for at least the first three years of the contract, the condition in paragraph B14(b) does not exist throughout the period of use. Therefore, the supplier does not have the substantive right to substitute a battery throughout the period of use. While determining whether a supplier’s substitution right is substantive throughout the period of use can require judgement, the Committee observed that the facts and circumstances in this fact pattern are such that it is clear that the supplier’s right is not substantive throughout that period.

The Committee’s conclusion

The Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, each battery is an identified asset. To assess whether the contract contains a lease, the customer would then apply the requirements in paragraphs B21–B30 of IFRS 16 to assess whether, throughout the period of use, it has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use, and direct the use, of each battery. If the customer concludes that the contract contains a lease, it would apply the requirements in paragraphs 18–21 of IFRS 16 to determine the lease term.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for an entity to evaluate the level at which to assess whether the contract contains a lease and whether there is an identified asset in the fact pattern described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan

Back to sub-topic index

207.4.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lease Term and Useful Life of Leasehold Improvements

November 2019 - The Committee received a request about cancellable or renewable leases.

The cancellable lease described in the request is one that does not specify a particular contractual term but continues indefinitely until either party to the contract gives notice to terminate. The contract includes a notice period of, for example, less than 12 months and the contract does not oblige either party to make a payment on termination. The renewable lease described in the request is one that specifies an initial period, and renews indefinitely at the end of the initial period unless terminated by either of the parties to the contract.

The request asked two questions:

Lease term

Paragraph 18 of IFRS 16 requires an entity to determine the lease term as the non-cancellable period of a lease, together with both (a) periods covered by an option to extend the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise that option; and (b) periods covered by an option to terminate the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain not to exercise that option.

In determining the lease term and assessing the length of the non-cancellable period of a lease, paragraph B34 of IFRS 16 requires an entity to determine the period for which the contract is enforceable. Paragraph B34 specifies that ‘a lease is no longer enforceable when the lessee and the lessor each has the right to terminate the lease without permission from the other party with no more than an insignificant penalty’.

Paragraph BC156 sets out the Board’s view that ‘the lease term should reflect an entity’s reasonable expectation of the period during which the underlying asset will be used because that approach provides the most useful information’.

The Committee observed that, in applying paragraph B34 and determining the enforceable period of the lease described in the request, an entity considers:

If an entity concludes that the contract is enforceable beyond the notice period of a cancellable lease (or the initial period of a renewable lease), it then applies paragraphs 19 and B37⁠–⁠B40 of IFRS 16 to assess whether the lessee is reasonably certain not to exercise the option to terminate the lease.

Interaction between lease term and useful life

In assessing whether a lessee is reasonably certain to extend (or not to terminate) a lease, paragraph B37 of IFRS 16 requires an entity to consider all relevant facts and circumstances that create an economic incentive for the lessee. This includes significant leasehold improvements undertaken (or expected to be undertaken) over the term of the contract that are expected to have significant economic benefit for the lessee when an option to extend or terminate the lease becomes exercisable (paragraph B37(b)).

In addition, as noted above an entity considers the broader economics of the contract when determining the enforceable period of the lease described in the request. This includes, for example, the costs of abandoning or dismantling non-removable leasehold improvements. If an entity expects to use non-removable leasehold improvements beyond the date on which the contract can be terminated, the existence of those leasehold improvements indicates that the entity might incur a more than insignificant penalty if it terminates the lease. Consequently, applying paragraph B34 of IFRS 16, an entity considers whether the contract is enforceable for at least the period of expected utility of the leasehold improvements.

In assessing whether a lessee is reasonably certain to extend (or not to terminate) a lease, paragraph B37 of IFRS 16 requires an entity to consider all relevant facts and circumstances that create an economic incentive for the lessee. This includes significant leasehold improvements undertaken (or expected to be undertaken) over the term of the contract that are expected to have significant economic benefit for the lessee when an option to extend or terminate the lease becomes exercisable (paragraph B37(b)).

In addition, as noted above an entity considers the broader economics of the contract when determining the enforceable period of the lease described in the request. This includes, for example, the costs of abandoning or dismantling non-removable leasehold improvements. If an entity expects to use non-removable leasehold improvements beyond the date on which the contract can be terminated, the existence of those leasehold improvements indicates that the entity might incur a more than insignificant penalty if it terminates the lease. Consequently, applying paragraph B34 of IFRS 16, an entity considers whether the contract is enforceable for at least the period of expected utility of the leasehold improvements.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine the lease term of cancellable and renewable leases. The Committee also concluded that the principles and requirements in IAS 16 and IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine the useful life of any non-removable leasehold improvements relating to such a lease. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

207.6.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lessee’s Incremental Borrowing Rate

September 2019 - The Committee received a request about the definition of a lessee’s incremental borrowing rate in IFRS 16. The request asked whether a lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is required to reflect the interest rate in a loan with both a similar maturity to the lease and a similar payment profile to the lease payments.

Applying IFRS 16, a lessee uses its incremental borrowing rate in measuring a lease liability when the interest rate implicit in the lease cannot be readily determined (paragraph 26 of IFRS 16). Appendix A to IFRS 16 defines a lessee’s incremental borrowing rate as ‘the rate of interest that a lessee would have to pay to borrow over a similar term, and with a similar security, the funds necessary to obtain an asset of a similar value to the right-of-use asset in a similar economic environment’. The lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is therefore a lease-specific rate that the Board defined ‘to take into account the terms and conditions of the lease’ (paragraph BC162).

In determining its incremental borrowing rate, the Board explained in paragraph BC162 that, depending on the nature of the underlying asset and the terms and conditions of the lease, a lessee may be able to refer to a rate that is readily observable as a starting point. A lessee would then adjust such an observable rate as is needed to determine its incremental borrowing rate as defined in IFRS 16.

The Committee observed that the definition of a lessee’s incremental borrowing rate requires a lessee to determine its incremental borrowing rate for a particular lease considering the terms and conditions of the lease, and determine a rate that reflects the rate it would have to pay to borrow:

The definition of a lessee’s incremental borrowing rate in IFRS 16 does not explicitly require a lessee to determine its incremental borrowing rate to reflect the interest rate in a loan with a similar payment profile to the lease payments. Nonetheless, the Committee observed that, in applying judgement in determining its incremental borrowing rate as defined in IFRS 16, it would be consistent with the Board’s objective when developing the definition of incremental borrowing rate for a lessee to refer as a starting point to a readily observable rate for a loan with a similar payment profile to that of the lease.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for a lessee to determine its incremental borrowing rate. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

October 2021 - The Committee received a request about how a lessee accounts for any non-refundable value added tax (VAT) charged on lease payments. In the fact pattern described in the request:

1. the lessee operates in a jurisdiction in which VAT is charged on goods and services. A seller includes VAT in an invoice for payment issued to a purchaser. In the case of leases, VAT is charged when an invoice for payment is issued by a lessor to a lessee.
2. the applicable legislation:
   1. requires a seller to collect VAT and remit it to the government; and
   2. generally allows a purchaser to recover from the government VAT charged on payments for goods or services, including leases.
3. because of the nature of its operations, the lessee can recover only a portion of the VAT charged on purchased goods or services. This includes VAT charged on payments it makes for leases. Consequently, a portion of the VAT the lessee pays is non-refundable.
4. lease agreements require the lessee to make payments to the lessor that include amounts related to VAT charged in accordance with the applicable legislation.

The request asked whether, in applying IFRS 16, the lessee includes non-refundable VAT as part of the lease payments for a lease.

Outreach conducted by the Committee and comment letters on the Committee’s tentative agenda decision provided limited evidence:

1. that non-refundable VAT on lease payments is material to affected lessees; and
2. of diversity in the way lessees in similar circumstances account for non-refundable VAT on lease payments.

The Committee has therefore not received evidence that the matter has widespread effect and has, or is expected to have, a material effect on those affected. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.

Back to sub-topic index

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lessor Forgiveness of Lease Payments

October 2022 -

The Committee received a request about a lessor’s application of IFRS 9 and IFRS 16 in accounting for a particular rent concession. The rent concession is one for which the only change to the lease contract is the lessor’s forgiveness of lease payments due from the lessee under that contract.

The fact pattern

The request described a rent concession agreed by a lessor and a lessee on the date the rent concession is granted. The rent concession changes the original terms and conditions of a lease contract classified by the lessor—applying IFRS 16—as an operating lease. The lessor legally releases the lessee from its obligation to make specifically identified lease payments:

a. some of these lease payments are amounts contractually due but not paid. Paragraph AG9 of IAS 32 states that ‘a lessor does not regard an operating lease as a financial instrument, except as regards individual payments currently due and payable by the lessee’. Therefore, the lessor has recognised these amounts as an operating lease receivable. Applying paragraph 81 of IFRS 16, the lessor has also recognised the amounts as income.

b. some of these lease payments are not yet contractually due.

No other changes are made to the lease contract, nor are there any other negotiations between the lessor and the lessee that might affect the accounting for the rent concession. Before the date the rent concession is granted, the lessor applies the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable.

The question

The request asked:

a. how the lessor applies the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable before the rent concession is granted if it expects to forgive payments due from the lessee under the lease contract; and

b. whether the lessor applies the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 or the lease modification requirements in IFRS 16 in accounting for the rent concession.

Applying the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable

Paragraph 2.1(b)(i) of IFRS 9 states that ‘operating lease receivables recognised by a lessor are subject to the derecognition and impairment requirements’ in IFRS 9. Therefore, a lessor is required to apply the impairment requirements in IFRS 9 to the gross carrying amount of an operating lease receivable from the date on which it recognises that receivable, taking into account applicable derecognition requirements in IFRS 9.

IFRS 9 defines credit loss as ‘the difference between all contractual cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and all the cash flows that the entity expects to receive (ie all cash shortfalls)…’. Paragraph 5.5.17 of IFRS 9 states that ‘an entity shall measure expected credit losses … in a way that reflects (a) an unbiased and probability-weighted amount that is determined by evaluating a range of possible outcomes; (b) the time value of money; and (c) reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort at the reporting date about past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions’.

Consequently, in the fact pattern described in the request, the lessor applies the impairment requirements in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable. The lessor estimates expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable by measuring any credit loss to reflect ‘all cash shortfalls’. These shortfalls are the difference between:

a. all contractual cash flows due to the lessor in accordance with the lease contract (and included in the gross carrying amount of the operating lease receivable); and

b. all the cash flows the lessor expects to receive, determined using ‘reasonable and supportable information’ about ‘past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions’.

Therefore, the Committee concluded that, before the rent concession is granted, the lessor measures expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable in a way that reflects ‘an unbiased and probability-weighted amount …’, ‘the time value of money’, and ‘reasonable and supportable information …’ (as

required by paragraph 5.5.17 of IFRS 9). This measurement of expected credit losses includes the lessor considering its expectations of forgiving lease payments recognised as part of that receivable.

Accounting for the rent concession—IFRS 9 and IFRS 16

Applying the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable

Paragraph 2.1(b)(i) of IFRS 9 states that operating lease receivables recognised by a lessor are subject to the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9. Consequently, on granting the rent concession, the lessor considers whether the requirements for derecognition in paragraph 3.2.3 of IFRS 9 are met.

In the rent concession described in the request, the lessor legally releases the lessee from its obligation to make specifically identified lease payments, some of which the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable. Accordingly, on granting the rent concession, the lessor concludes that the requirements in paragraph 3.2.3(a) of IFRS 9 have been met—that is, its contractual rights to the cash flows from the operating lease receivable expire—because it has agreed to legally release the lessee from its obligation and thus has given up its contractual rights to those specifically identified cash flows. Therefore, on the date the rent concession is granted, the lessor remeasures expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable (and recognises any change to the expected credit loss allowance in profit or loss) and derecognises the operating lease receivable (and associated expected credit loss allowance).

Applying the lease modification requirements in IFRS 16 to future lease payments under the lease

The rent concession described in the request meets the definition of a lease modification in IFRS 16. The rent concession is ‘a change in … the consideration for a lease … that was not part of the original terms and conditions of the lease’. Therefore, the lessor applies paragraph 87 of IFRS 16 and accounts for the modified lease as a new lease from the date the rent concession is granted.

Paragraph 87 of IFRS 16 requires a lessor to consider any prepaid or accrued lease payments relating to the original lease as part of the lease payments for the new lease. The Committee observed that lease payments contractually due from the lessee that the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable (to which the derecognition and impairment requirements in IFRS 9 apply) are not accrued lease payments. Consequently, neither those lease payments nor their forgiveness are considered—applying paragraph 87 of IFRS 16—as part of the lease payments for the new lease.

In accounting for the modified lease as a new lease, a lessor applies paragraph 81 of IFRS 16 and recognises the lease payments (including any prepaid or accrued lease payments relating to the original lease) as income on either a straight-line basis or another systematic basis.

The Committee concluded that the lessor accounts for the rent concession described in the request on the date it is granted by applying: (a) the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 to forgiven lease payments that the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable; and (b) the lease modification requirements in IFRS 16 to forgiven lease payments that the lessor has not recognised as an operating lease receivable.

Conclusion

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Accounting Standards provide an adequate basis for a lessor to determine how to apply the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to an operating lease receivable and account for the rent concession described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.

Back to sub-topic index

207.17.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Sale and Leaseback with Variable Payments

June 2020 - The Committee received a request about a sale and leaseback transaction with variable payments. In the transaction described in the request:

The request asked how, in the transaction described, the seller-lessee measures the right-of-use asset arising from the leaseback, and thus determines the amount of any gain or loss recognised at the date of the transaction.

The Committee observed that the requirements applicable to the transaction described in the request are in paragraph 100 of IFRS 16. Paragraph 100 states that ‘if the transfer of an asset by the seller-lessee satisfies the requirements of IFRS 15 to be accounted for as a sale of the asset: (a) the seller-lessee shall measure the right-of-use asset arising from the leaseback at the proportion of the previous carrying amount of the asset that relates to the right of use retained by the seller-lessee. Accordingly, the seller-lessee shall recognise only the amount of any gain or loss that relates to the rights transferred to the buyer-lessor. …’.

Consequently, to measure the right-of-use asset arising from the leaseback, the seller-lessee determines the proportion of the PPE transferred to the buyer-lessor that relates to the right of use retained—it does so by comparing, at the date of the transaction, the right of use it retains via the leaseback to the rights comprising the entire PPE. IFRS 16 does not prescribe a method for determining that proportion. In the transaction described in the request, the seller-lessee could determine the proportion by comparing, for example, (a) the present value of expected payments for the lease (including those that are variable), with (b) the fair value of the PPE at the date of the transaction. 

The gain or loss the seller-lessee recognises at the date of the transaction is a consequence of its measurement of the right-of-use asset arising from the leaseback. Because the right of use the seller-lessee retains is not remeasured as a result of the transaction (it is measured as a proportion of the PPE’s previous carrying amount), the amount of the gain or loss recognised relates only to the rights transferred to the buyer-lessor. Applying paragraph 53(i) of IFRS 16, the seller-lessee discloses gains or losses arising from sale and leaseback transactions.

The seller-lessee also recognises a liability at the date of the transaction, even if all the payments for the lease are variable and do not depend on an index or rate. The initial measurement of the liability is a consequence of how the right-of-use asset is measured—and the gain or loss on the sale and leaseback transaction determined—applying paragraph 100(a) of IFRS 16.

lllustrative example

Seller-lessee enters into a sale and leaseback transaction whereby it transfers an asset (PPE) to Buyer-lessor, and leases that PPE back for five years. The transfer of the PPE satisfies the requirements in IFRS 15 to be accounted for as a sale of the PPE.

The carrying amount of the PPE in Seller-lessee’s financial statements at the date of the transaction is CU1,000,000, and the amount paid by Buyer-lessor for the PPE is CU1,800,000 (the fair value of the PPE at that date). All the payments for the lease (which are at market rates) are variable, calculated as a percentage of Seller-lessee’s revenue generated using the PPE during the five-year lease term. At the date of the transaction, the present value of the expected payments for the lease is CU450,000. There are no initial direct costs.

Seller-lessee determines that it is appropriate to calculate the proportion of the PPE that relates to the right of use retained using the present value of expected payments for the lease. On this basis, the proportion of the PPE that relates to the right of use retained is 25%, calculated as CU450,000 (present value of expected payments for the lease) ÷ CU1,800,000 (fair value of the PPE). Consequently, the proportion of the PPE that relates to the rights transferred to Buyer-lessor is 75%, calculated as (CU1,800,000 − CU450,000) ÷ CU1,800,000. 

Applying paragraph 100(a), Seller-lessee:

Applying paragraph 100(a), the right-of-use asset would not be measured at zero at the date of the transaction because zero would not reflect the proportion of the previous carrying amount of the PPE (CU1,000,000) that relates to the right of use retained by Seller-lessee.

At the date of the transaction, Seller-lessee accounts for the transaction as follows:

• Dr. Cash CU1,800,000

• Dr. Right-of-use asset CU250,000
  • Cr. PPE CU1,000,000
  • Cr. Liability CU450,000
  • Cr. Gain on rights transferred CU600,000

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine, at the date of the transaction, the accounting for the sale and leaseback transaction described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index